Re: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals

Description of an isbn:
    name (characters that make up the number): 093738318X
    type (the numbering scheme it is in): ISBN
    issuing authority: Bowker
    issue date: 1997
    assigned to: http://www.bookwire.com/9780985887025

OR using the SKOS proposal:

<http://bowker.com/identifiers/isbn/9780553479430>
    a skos:Concept;
    schema:name "093738318X";
    schema:inScheme <http://bowker.com/concept-scheme/isbn> ;
    schema:focus <http://www.bookwire.com/9780985887025>.

Markup of the concept-scheme could, in this model, provide information about
the issuing authority.  Not sure yet how I would map the issue date property

~Richard.

On 16/01/2013 17:14, "Laura Dawson" <ljndawson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Good point.
> 
> When you say "description of the number" - could you give an example?
> 
> On 1/16/13 12:03 PM, "Richard Wallis" <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Is the Bookwire page not a description of the book (that happens to have
>> that isbn allocated to it) not a description of the number itself?
>> ~Richard.
>> 
>> On 16/01/2013 16:56, "Laura Dawson" <ljndawson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> We do, actually - we just make a different URL available publicly for
>>> SEO
>>> purposes. It's not on Bowker.com - it's on a site called Bookwire.
>>> 
>>> http://www.bookwire.com/9780985887025 is an example. It's an alias for
>>> http://www.bookwire.com/The-Twelve-9780985887025.html.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 1/16/13 11:49 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I admit that I always have trouble with the re-working of ontologies to
>>>> new uses (like using dcterms:title for a person's name, which is legit
>>>> but always rubs me the wrong way). In the SKOS case, I just can't see
>>>> an
>>>> identifier as a skos:concept. Also, if Bowker *did* provide a URI for
>>>> ISBNs (and I think that's being discussed but is not yet realized) then
>>>> I see no need for the identifier structure in schema. It is needed for
>>>> those instances where there is no URI. (But, Jeff, maybe that's just an
>>>> artifact of your example?)
>>>> 
>>>> kc
>>>> 
>>>> On 1/15/13 11:07 PM, Shlomo Sanders wrote:
>>>>> I looked at both. They seem to be equivalent with the SKOS being
>>>>> cleaner
>>>>> and also based on only one new construct: SKOS.
>>>>> Personally, I think the name attribute in the SKOS is a misleading
>>>>> attribute label for at text key value.
>>>>> If I had to choose between name and prefLabel I would prefer the
>>>>> latter
>>>>> (though that is also misleading too but better than name).
>>>>> How does this work for?
>>>>> schema:identifier <urn:nbn:ch:bel-9039>;
>>>>> In the SKOS part itself, is the do the inSchema and focus need to be
>>>>> working URIs with something behind it?
>>>>> <http://bowker.com/identifiers/isbn/9780553479430>
>>>>>      a skos:Concept;
>>>>>      schema:name "9780553479430";
>>>>>      schema:inScheme <http://bowker.com/concept-scheme/isbn> ;
>>>>>      schema:focus <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520>.
>>>>> Shlomo
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Young,Jeff (OR) [mailto:jyoung@oclc.org]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 20:05
>>>>> To: Shlomo Sanders; Wallis,Richard; Karen Coyle; Gordon Dunsire
>>>>> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Vizine-Goetz,Diane
>>>>> Subject: RE: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals
>>>>> There was some discussion of Richard's Identifier Proposal during
>>>>> today's call, so I wanted to clarify my comments.
>>>>> My observation was that the key patterns in Richard's "Identifier
>>>>> Proposal" mirror patterns found in SKOS. I added a section to the
>>>>> proposal so they can be compared side-by-side:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier#Proposal
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier#Alternate_Propo
>>>>> se
>>>>> d_based_on_SKOS
>>>>> If Schema.org adopts the essence of SKOS (which they should if they're
>>>>> serious about wanting to externalize lists), then Richard's Proposal
>>>>> can
>>>>> be modeled as a specialization of that:
>>>>> schema:Identifier rdfs:subClassOf schema:Concept .
>>>>> schema:inStandard rdfs:subPropertyOf schema:inScheme .
>>>>> schema:identifies rdfs:subPropertyOf schema:focus .
>>>>> I'm skeptical that Schema.org will care about explicitly modeling
>>>>> "identifiers for identifiers" like this, but I won't object if the
>>>>> group
>>>>> wants to try.
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Shlomo Sanders [mailto:Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 1:30 AM
>>>>>> To: Wallis,Richard; Karen Coyle; Gordon Dunsire
>>>>>> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Young,Jeff (OR); Vizine-Goetz,Diane
>>>>>> Subject: RE: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "So, in my draft I was intending the URI would identify (link to) the
>>>>>> description of a [standard] identifier."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This seems convoluted and not KISS.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 22:12
>>>>>> To: Karen Coyle; Gordon Dunsire
>>>>>> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; 'Young,Jeff (OR)'; Vizine-Goetz,Diane
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Gordon,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As Karen mentions, Schema.org purposely avoids the strict definition
>>>>>> of domains and ranges and (as I would put it) 'hopes' to find the
>>>>>> Expected Type as a property but it is also acceptable to find a
>>>>>> string
>>>>>> representation.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The 'identifier' property I describe in the draft is stretching
>>>>>> schema.org documentation style a little, by adding in an order of
>>>>>> preference to the Expected Type.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You are correct that a URI could be an identifier but the meaning I
>>>>>> was hoping for in this case was that the identifier in question would
>>>>>> be a [Standard] Identifier.  Hence the examples of ISSN, ISNI, etc.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> However I omitted the word 'standard' so as not to restrict the use
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> only identifiers produced by standards bodies.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, in my draft I was intending the URI would identify (link to) the
>>>>>> description of a [standard] identifier.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I perhaps need to work a little on my descriptive text - all
>>>>>> suggestions welcome!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ~Richard.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 06/01/2013 18:01, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>>>>>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 1/6/13 8:27 AM, Gordon Dunsire wrote:
>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In the Identifier proposal, the value of the schema.identifier
>>>>>>>> property includes URIs.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 1. Assuming that schema.org Type is a synonym for RDF Class (or am
>>>>>>>> I wrong?), what does this mean for the range of the identifier? Is
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> literal, as in the "urn:nbn:ch:bel-9039" example, or a class, as in
>>>>>>>> the <examplelib.org/identifier/12345> example, which is an
>>>>>> individual
>>>>>>>> member of the class?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I believe that schema.org is purposely avoiding the strict
>>>>>>> definition of domains and ranges. As it says in the documentation:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "The decision to allow multiple domains and ranges was purely
>>>>>> pragmatic.
>>>>>>> While the computational properties of systems with a single domain
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> range are easier to understand, in practice, this forces the
>>>>>>> creation of a lot of artifical types, which are there purely to act
>>>>>>> as the domain/range of some properties. "
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2. Using the example, is it not true to say in ttl:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> schema.identifier
>>>>>>>> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> .?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If so, <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> is both a
>>>>>>>> schema.Book and a schema.Identifier Š
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If the two (schema.Book and schema.Identifier) are not disjoint,
>>>>>>> does it matter?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> kc
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Gordon
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> *From:*Richard Wallis[mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org]
>>>>>> <mailto:[mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org]>
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 03 January 2013 12:36
>>>>>>>> *To:*public-schemabibex@w3.org <mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>
>>>>>>>> *Cc:* Young,Jeff (OR); Vizine-Goetz,Diane
>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I have pulled some of our thoughts and discussions together into a
>>>>>>>> couple of draft vocabulary proposals.  They can be found on the
>>>>>>>> Wiki
>>>>>>>> here:
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Vocabulary_Proposals>.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> These are most definitely Œdraft¹ proposals and are there as a
>>>>>>>> foundation for us to work on.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I am not precious about any of the Type or Property names I have
>>>>>>>> used, or any of the descriptive text either.  If you have better
>>>>>>>> suggestions, dive in and share!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I have included some example RDF ­ I will add some RDFa and
>>>>>>>> possibly other format examples later.  I am holding off for a few
>>>>>>>> days on this, as I am in discussion with the W3C hosting people
>>>>>>>> about adding a syntax highlighting extension added to the Wiki
>>>>>>>> which will make code examples far more readable.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>       Richard.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 17:27:46 UTC